(04-09-2014 11:03 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote: I don't see that the Sun Belt owes UMass anything. Idaho joined this year knowing that it was only a 2 year football agreement. The Sun Belt does not owe them anything beyond that either.

Its a 4 year agreement, with a 2 year option to expel, renew, or keep the original agreement.

Yes. We can terminate the agreement after two years, with two years notice. Which is why you hear the talk we'll play 13 if need be. It would only be for a couple years while Idaho plays out its time, and getting the Waiver would be easy.

(04-09-2014 11:04 PM)slycat Wrote: How long til y'all take Idaho back and the circle is complete again? You can add Montana for balance.

The chances of the MWC adding Idaho and Montana are none and none. If the conference lost a member and was forced to expand, the target would be UTEP. If there were multiple losses, the conference would go after some combination of UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, Texas State and Rice. If the Texas schools all said no, UC Davis would be higher on the list of potential invitees than Idaho or Montana.

Don't get me wrong, I like both schools, but neither Idaho nor Montana brings a population base. The Sacramento market has three times the population of the entire state of Montana.

(04-09-2014 11:03 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote: I don't see that the Sun Belt owes UMass anything. Idaho joined this year knowing that it was only a 2 year football agreement. The Sun Belt does not owe them anything beyond that either.

Its a 4 year agreement, with a 2 year option to expel, renew, or keep the original agreement.

Yes. We can terminate the agreement after two years, with two years notice. Which is why you hear the talk we'll play 13 if need be. It would only be for a couple years while Idaho plays out its time, and getting the Waiver would be easy.

Given all the realignment possibilities out there the chances of Idaho getting the boot with 2 years notice in 2016 are probably no better than 25%.

All it takes is one realignment move to trickle down to the SBC.....B1G->ACC->-AAC->CUSA->SBC and all of the sudden those 13 football members become 12.

CUSA could grab 2 more SBC's before its next TV deal kicks in and then the SBC is at 11 hoping UMass is still on the market.

Was this Idaho "exit clause" ever brought up before tonight? There were several threads which brought up the SBC would be "stuck" with Idaho,etc.,etc..Idaho's a bad move-blah,blah,blah.If someone had shown the exit clause then it would have changed many opinions!!(see post#30).

(04-09-2014 11:03 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote: I don't see that the Sun Belt owes UMass anything. Idaho joined this year knowing that it was only a 2 year football agreement. The Sun Belt does not owe them anything beyond that either.

No one said the SBC owes UMASS anything. I think that if UMASS can't find a home and we are at 13 with Idaho as football only, it would be discussed to bring an east coast football only into the mix. If both were paying annual dues, and there was a travel offset agreement like we have with IDAHO, then it might work to get to 14 that way. My preference is for this evening's rumors to come true and that we have 2 full members joining the league in the footprint of the conference. We can have the UMASS/IDAHO discussion next year.

(04-09-2014 11:22 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote: Was this Idaho "exit clause" ever brought up before tonight? There were several threads which brought up the SBC would be "stuck" with Idaho,etc.,etc..Idaho's a bad move-blah,blah,blah.If someone had shown the exit clause then it would have changed many opinions!!(see post#30).

Well, the North Dakota fan said there was an FOI for it...so we went and found it.

(04-09-2014 11:03 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote: I don't see that the Sun Belt owes UMass anything. Idaho joined this year knowing that it was only a 2 year football agreement. The Sun Belt does not owe them anything beyond that either.

No one said the SBC owes UMASS anything. I think that if UMASS can't find a home and we are at 13 with Idaho as football only, it would be discussed to bring an east coast football only into the mix. If both were paying annual dues, and there was a travel offset agreement like we have with IDAHO, then it might work to get to 14 that way. My preference is for this evening's rumors to come true and that we have 2 full members joining the league in the footprint of the conference. We can have the UMASS/IDAHO discussion next year.

Or a new Eastern Seaboard conference discussion.....

With CUSA's exit fee tied against damages to the TV contract it may be Georgia State, Georgia Southern, App State, JMU, UMass ect that will lead the charge for a separatist league. Convince 1-2 to join from CUSA like Marshall and ODU but not enough schools to bring down value of the entire contract.

(04-09-2014 11:03 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote: I don't see that the Sun Belt owes UMass anything. Idaho joined this year knowing that it was only a 2 year football agreement. The Sun Belt does not owe them anything beyond that either.

Its a 4 year agreement, with a 2 year option to expel, renew, or keep the original agreement.

Yes. We can terminate the agreement after two years, with two years notice. Which is why you hear the talk we'll play 13 if need be. It would only be for a couple years while Idaho plays out its time, and getting the Waiver would be easy.

Given all the realignment possibilities out there the chances of Idaho getting the boot with 2 years notice in 2016 are probably no better than 25%.

All it takes is one realignment move to trickle down to the SBC.....B1G->ACC->-AAC->CUSA->SBC and all of the sudden those 13 football members become 12.

CUSA could grab 2 more SBC's before its next TV deal kicks in and then the SBC is at 11 hoping UMass is still on the market.

Nope. Don't see that as a likely scenario. CUSA is at 14 and in some ways regret being at that number. They have two teams to lose before they even decide to go back to 14. I think the biggest big boys are done with the exception of the Big 12 and their TV agreement has them in no hurry as well. The AAC might add a school, but whatever happens I think the domino theory would be limited to 1-2 conferences. The MAC staying at 12 and the AAC only really needing one school pretty much insures there will be no additional movements for a while. If JMU in fact accepts an SBC invite all sports, that will be the biggest proof of all that realignment is played out for the time being.

(04-09-2014 11:22 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote: Was this Idaho "exit clause" ever brought up before tonight? There were several threads which brought up the SBC would be "stuck" with Idaho,etc.,etc..Idaho's a bad move-blah,blah,blah.If someone had shown the exit clause then it would have changed many opinions!!(see post#30).

Well, the North Dakota fan said there was an FOI for it...so we went and found it.

I recall some conversation about a 4 year agreement for Idaho but I think it wasn't made public when they announced the deal.

(04-09-2014 11:03 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote: I don't see that the Sun Belt owes UMass anything. Idaho joined this year knowing that it was only a 2 year football agreement. The Sun Belt does not owe them anything beyond that either.

No one said the SBC owes UMASS anything. I think that if UMASS can't find a home and we are at 13 with Idaho as football only, it would be discussed to bring an east coast football only into the mix. If both were paying annual dues, and there was a travel offset agreement like we have with IDAHO, then it might work to get to 14 that way. My preference is for this evening's rumors to come true and that we have 2 full members joining the league in the footprint of the conference. We can have the UMASS/IDAHO discussion next year.

Or a new Eastern Seaboard conference discussion.....

With CUSA's exit fee tied against damages to the TV contract it may be Georgia State, Georgia Southern, App State, JMU, UMass ect that will lead the charge for a separatist league. Convince 1-2 to join from CUSA like Marshall and ODU but not enough schools to bring down value of the entire contract.

Contract expires in 2016. Can't hurt the value of a contract yet to be negotiated (in an easily provable way)

Not currently. But it may be desirable from a travel standpoint if you go to 12+ members.

We've had 13 before for a few years. Tried divisions for a while, but from what I remember our coaches were dead set against it.

Actually the coaches love divisions. "What do you mean we had a bad year? We were two games out of first in the division?" Yeah but you were six out of first in the league overall!

I call those division titles "We're Better than UALR" Banners. Because for years, that was basically the entire SBC West battle. The Two Louisiana schools were busy trying to stay out of the NCAA's way, Denver and New Orleans both struggled to compete, and UNT was...well...UNT.

(04-09-2014 11:03 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote: I don't see that the Sun Belt owes UMass anything. Idaho joined this year knowing that it was only a 2 year football agreement. The Sun Belt does not owe them anything beyond that either.

No one said the SBC owes UMASS anything. I think that if UMASS can't find a home and we are at 13 with Idaho as football only, it would be discussed to bring an east coast football only into the mix. If both were paying annual dues, and there was a travel offset agreement like we have with IDAHO, then it might work to get to 14 that way. My preference is for this evening's rumors to come true and that we have 2 full members joining the league in the footprint of the conference. We can have the UMASS/IDAHO discussion next year.

Or a new Eastern Seaboard conference discussion.....

With CUSA's exit fee tied against damages to the TV contract it may be Georgia State, Georgia Southern, App State, JMU, UMass ect that will lead the charge for a separatist league. Convince 1-2 to join from CUSA like Marshall and ODU but not enough schools to bring down value of the entire contract.

Contract expires in 2016. Can't hurt the value of a contract yet to be negotiated (in an easily provable way)

It expires in 2015-16. I think the eastern upgrades of the SBC might be a little late to the party to try to force something by the end of next year.

If you fast forward to about 2018-19 in advance of the next round of bowl contracts and CFP negotiations then it would make more sense to split when you can gain your own set of bowls, payout for the CFP ect. CUSA's deal will probably not go beyond 2019-20 anyways so hurting a contract won't be a problem then either.

The basic fact is the CUSA/SBC double footprint alignment is not in the best interest of the schools of those conferences. The way you build a football following is by playing a regional schedule, IMO.

(04-09-2014 11:01 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: I agree that the Vandals will be in the SBC at least through the '17-'18 season.

So, if offers are going out to both JMU and MSU, I'm guessing the JMU offer is for all sports and the MSU offer is for non-football sports, with an option for MSU to begin a transition to FBS in '16-'17 and complete it in '18-'19 when Idaho can be replaced.

Having said this, I'm nonetheless skeptical of these reports because of the impact of adding both JMU and MSU on non-football divisional alignment. If both schools are invited, the SBC will have 13 members for non-football sports, which isn't workable. NMSU can be upgraded to full membership to balance the divisions, but that means the Louisiana schools will have to play in separate divisions, which doesn't make sense. My prediction is still just one addition to the conference, in the east, with the choice coming down to JMU (preferred), Liberty (fallback), or EKU (dark horse).

+1. The SBC needs one school, an eastern school. JMU or Liberty. There is no good reason to go beyond 12 at this time.

Idaho is not leaving. Missouri State is not coming. These ridiculous rumors will never stop.